Ohio man excuted after vulgar last gesture

jillio said:
I can't believe the ways in which they have attempted to confuse the issue.:roll:
Click to expand...

Yeah, the responses are emotional. That is understandable, but I cannot get over the insistence to continue it.
 
jillio said:
Again, I answered it. And no, it is not an issue. It would have been an issue only at trial, not in his execution.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a legal issue. It makes a huge difference in the charges, the conviction and the sentencing. You asked what the difference was between their two trials. That is one major difference. It can't be ignored.

No, she was diagnosed as mentally ill during the killings.
Click to expand...
Also, she was diagnosed as mentally ill prior to the killings.

That is the issue that is a factor before the court. Mental state at the time of the commission of the crime.
Click to expand...
Which, a diagnosis of prior mental illness could support at trial.

And there was evidence of this man's psychosis during the commission of his crimes. It was withheld by the prosecutors.
Click to expand...
Apparently either his defense lawyers didn't do a good job at digging around for evidence, or the prosecutor committed an illegal act by intentionally withholding evidence in discovery.

However, this is not about his trial. This is not about his guilt or innocence. It is about his execution as a mentally ill inmate. John Kasick had the opportunity to prevent the illegal execution of a mentally ill inmate. He chose not to.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is also about the trial. If new evidence was found (the diagnosis) or if his lawyers were found to have provided an inadequate defense, he could have had either a new trial or a new sentencing upon appeal.
 
Jiro said:
it's extremely difficult to use insanity defense. and what you speak of is a psychopathic or cold-blooded killer without remorse. Those kind of animals are completely different from those with mental retardation/illness.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Reba said:
Yes, it is a legal issue. It makes a huge difference in the charges, the conviction and the sentencing. You asked what the difference was between their two trials. That is one major difference. It can't be ignored.
Click to expand...
The info regarding her mental state was not witheld.

Also, she was diagnosed as mentally ill prior to the killings.
Click to expand...
As jillio has pointed out, she was dx'd as mentally ill around the time the killings took place.
Which, a diagnosis of prior mental illness could support at trial.
Click to expand...

The infomation regarding the guy in the op's post was withheld despite his long and documented history of mental illness.
Apparently either his defense lawyers didn't do a good job at digging around for evidence, or the prosecutor committed an illegal act by intentionally withholding evidence in discovery.
Click to expand...
That's a distinctive possibility.
Yes, it is also about the trial. If new evidence was found (the diagnosis) or if his lawyers were found to have provided an inadequate defense, he could have had either a new trial or a new sentencing upon appeal.
Click to expand...

it's a little late for that now.
 
Reba said:
Yes, it is a legal issue. It makes a huge difference in the charges, the conviction and the sentencing. You asked what the difference was between their two trials. That is one major difference. It can't be ignored.

You still don't get it, do you? Being diagnosed prior to the crime is not an issue. Being psychotic during the commission of a crime is the issue.A mental health diagnosis prior to commission of a crime is nothing more than mitigating history. It may or may not impact the sentence or the conviction. Insanity as a defense is only applicable at the time the crime was being committed.

And again, we are not arguing guilt or innocence. The man was found guilty. No one is arguing against that. The point is that AT SENTENCING, INFORMATION REGARDING HIS MENTAL STATUS AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME WAS WITHHELD. Please read what the judge who sat on the sentencing panel has stated. THE SENTENCE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEATH HAD THE INFORMATION BEEN MADE AVAILABLE.

Now, knowing all of that, and knowing that this man is still mentally ill (and no doubt moreso thanks to our prison system) the Governor of the State of Ohio had the opportunity to prevent an illegal execution by commuting the sentence to life without parole. He failed to do so. A man was murdered by the state as a result.
Also, she was diagnosed as mentally ill prior to the killings.

So? That doesn't mean that she was mentally ill at the time of the killings. That is what needs to be determined.

Which, a diagnosis of prior mental illness could support at trial.

No it doesn't. It simplu supports a history of mental illness.


Apparently either his defense lawyers didn't do a good job at digging around for evidence, or the prosecutor committed an illegal act by intentionally withholding evidence in discovery.

The prosecutor committed an illegal act by withholding information. How many times does it have to be said? As a result, this man's mental status at the time of the crime was not considered during sentencing.

Yes, it is also about the trial. If new evidence was found (the diagnosis) or if his lawyers were found to have provided an inadequate defense, he could have had either a new trial or a new sentencing upon appeal.
Click to expand...

This isn't about overturning his conviction. It is about the sentence of death that would not have been handed down if the information regarding his mental status were available at the time and the refusal of Govenor Kasick to act appropriately in light of that by commuting his sentence.
 
deafskeptic said:
Exactly.
Click to expand...

People have no understanding of the insanity defense. And this is not about the insanity defense to begin with. It is about evidence of his mental state that would have prevented him being sentenced to death that was withheld. It is about that evidence coming to light, and the Governor of the state of Ohio refusing to commute the sentence in light of that evidence. The man was mentally ill when he was executed.
 
deafskeptic said:
The info regarding her mental state was not witheld.


As jillio has pointed out, she was dx'd as mentally ill around the time the killings took place.


The infomation regarding the guy in the op's post was withheld despite his long and documented history of mental illness.

That's a distinctive possibility.


it's a little late for that now.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The option was for John Kasick to commute his sentence to life without parole in light of his over 30 year history of suffering from 3 comorbid diagnosis that resulted in this man being psychotic.

The State of Ohio has executed a mentally ill man who has demonstrated consistent evidence of his psychosis for the 30 years he was held in prison. Executing him was illegal.
 
I find the argument like a serial killer with "defective" frontal lobe or a psychopathic person with distorted view of right & wrong completely fallacious and comical.

It's pretty obvious. We should not be executing a prisoner with Down Syndrome even if he raped and killed several children otherwise.... we're no different from villagers during Middle Age where they would be lynching and burning people accused of practicing witchcraft and Satanic stuff.
 
jillio said:
People have no understanding of the insanity defense. And this is not about the insanity defense to begin with. It is about evidence of his mental state that would have prevented him being sentenced to death that was withheld. It is about that evidence coming to light, and the Governor of the state of Ohio refusing to commute the sentence in light of that evidence. The man was mentally ill when he was executed.
Click to expand...

Yup. There's no doubt he did the crime. The question here is his mental state and the proper treatment and/or punishment in his case. He didn't get the proper treatment that's for sure and the punishment was extreme given his mental state. The Sixth Amendment was violated in his case

The insanity defense rarely works anyway.
 
Beach girl said:
I give you points for correctly spelling "fallacious," Jiro.
Click to expand...

It's nice he can spell better than me. Now what was the point of jiro's post? I am under the impression that you are more interested in grammar and spelling than the content of the posts.
 
Last edited:
My position on capital punishment is that rapists and murderers deserve capital punishment, irregardless of their mental state.

However, I oppose the practice of capital punishment, because I believe that the standard of evidence needs to be extremely high, much higher than it is now.

I don't like the fact that there are, right now, innocent people on Death Row, who were falsely convicted of a crime they did not do. But they were convicted because the standards of evidence were such that it allowed them to be convicted anyway. Sometimes, the judges and prosecutors and defense and even the jury, are just plain incompetent.

Like a previous poster said, execution is a mistake you can't undo. That alone gives me great pause.

But do rapists and murderers deserve capital punishment? I think yes, without question. But I won't support the practice of capital punishment until the system of proving guilt is perfect. It has never been perfect, and I doubt it will ever be perfect.

In the United States, we know there have been people falsely convicted and executed for crimes they did not commit. I'm sure it happens in other countries with capital punishment. I'm sure it's happened plenty of times in history.
 
deafskeptic said:
Yup. There's no doubt he did the crime. The question here is his mental state and the proper treatment and/or punishment in his case. He didn't get the proper treatment that's for sure and the punishment was extreme given his mental state. The Sixth Amendment was violated in his case

The insanity defense rarely works anyway.
Click to expand...

Not to mention a violation of the Supreme Court findings on the execution of the mentally ill and cogntively impaired. Personally, I see that as a bit more important than spelling.
 
DeafBadger said:
My position on capital punishment is that rapists and murderers deserve capital punishment, irregardless of their mental state.

However, I oppose the practice of capital punishment, because I believe that the standard of evidence needs to be extremely high, much higher than it is now.

I don't like the fact that there are, right now, innocent people on Death Row, who were falsely convicted of a crime they did not do. But they were convicted because the standards of evidence were such that it allowed them to be convicted anyway. Sometimes, the judges and prosecutors and defense and even the jury, are just plain incompetent.

Like a previous poster said, execution is a mistake you can't undo. That alone gives me great pause.

But do rapists and murderers deserve capital punishment? I think yes, without question. But I won't support the practice of capital punishment until the system of proving guilt is perfect. It has never been perfect, and I doubt it will ever be perfect.

In the United States, we know there have been people falsely convicted and executed for crimes they did not commit. I'm sure it happens in other countries with capital punishment. I'm sure it's happened plenty of times in history.
Click to expand...

It has happened here recently.
 
jillio said:
Yes, it is a complicated issue, and that is exactly why the Supreme Court took the issue on in 1986.

I understand your personal feelings. We all would have them. But that is the stuff of vigilantes, not the laws of a nation. We do not, nor should we, decide the laws of a nation based on a wish for revenge.
Click to expand...

I do agree with that - and it's a good thing that there's an objective third party, the justice system, put in place to ensure fair sentencing instead of leaving justice in the hands of vengeful individuals.
 
DeafCaroline said:
I do agree with that - and it's a good thing that there's an objective third party, the justice system, put in place to ensure fair sentencing instead of leaving justice in the hands of vengeful individuals.
Click to expand...

Now, if we could just get the justice system to be truly objective, we'd have it fixed!:P
 
jillio said:
Exactly. The option was for John Kasick to commute his sentence to life without parole in light of his over 30 year history of suffering from 3 comorbid diagnosis that resulted in this man being psychotic.

The State of Ohio has executed a mentally ill man who has demonstrated consistent evidence of his psychosis for the 30 years he was held in prison. Executing him was illegal.
Click to expand...
The State of Ohio executed a convicted murderer of children who had 30 years to make a case for a retrial, resentencing hearing, or leniency.
 
Reba said:
The State of Ohio executed a convicted murderer of children who had 30 years to make a case for a retrial, resentencing hearing, or leniency.
Click to expand...

No, the State of Ohio illegally executed a mentally ill man, diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, PTSD, and psychogenic amnesia. He was psychotic at the time of execution. Therefore, they committed murder. State sanctioned murder is still murder.
 
Back
Top